Perhaps, this is because, like the music industry, they're beginning to see that anybody can go direct with their content in a digital format, and bypass them completely.
is when the industry in question behaves like assholes.
I check out music on Napster, because with CDs at the price they are, I want to make sure they're worth the money, many are not.
If they're so worried, maybe they should take a good hard look at the way they do business and how their customers see them.
Are these publishers just like Metallica? looking for someone to blame for their decline in popularity and sales?
The same Microsoft who for 20 years has turned out inferior software, who is reviled by a large percentage of the IT community, yet still is the most succesful software company in the world?
The same Microsoft that's been under legal threat, and the same Microsoft that the Average Joe will one day abandon for something better.
Any company that relies on FUD will ultimately fail
For those not sure what to recommend with ethical concerns, offer a choice, let them know about MS ethics, but that Linux (or other option) is maybe not the best solution.
But what if you could make in two screw-the-customer projects what you make in twenty honest contracts?
A quirk of customer relations is that although a good experience with a company is expected, if a customer has a bad experience with a company, they will tell at least 10 people about it very quickly. After that they may bring it up again and again, as an example of crappy service.
For every person they tell, there's a chance that person will tell others, again and again.
Personal recommendations have a LOT to do with consumer choice.
It seems to me that the time is now, at the (argueably) beginning of the technical surge of society. If the system we use to protect the investments we make toward new ideas is flawed so badly, we could really see a hiccup or worse down the line when we hit some sort of patent litigation critical mass.
I agree with you, and I hope we might see a movement or two respond to this post (I won't hold my breath).
In general I have noticed a kind of political apathy in the IT industry. Governments are responsible for laws and patents, and if they're not doing it right, they're not going to know unless someone tells them and/or explains it to them.
Few politicans have much of a clue about technology, which is why you don't see many policies covering it.
I'd really like to see some global organisations covering this, not just US-centric. I don't think you just need lawyers, although they'd be an asset, but a pool of people willing to express their opinions and stand up for them.
Laws passed in one place often repeat themselves somewhere else...
it's not just the OS. I've been through a lot of Apple hardware, and it's all still in perfect working order.
I've never had Apple parts break on me, the only tech repair I've had done is battery replacement.
Of the PC users I know who've had computers as long as I have, none of them can say the same.
obviously I didn't wrote that post clearly enough.
The world would be a poorer place if some of the old Masters had had to work in a pub instead of creating one of their paintings.
This was trying to point at that when an artist has to do something other than art to support themselves, they are losing the opportunity to create (opportunity cost for those who've done Economics). For those Masters without patrons, art comes second after survival. Therefore, any Masters that did work, are probably short a few paintings than if they'd had a patron. I know copyright didn't effect the Masters directly, but their source of income was the patron. Now the source of income is the copyright AND the originals. A copyrighted painting can be printed as a poster or whatever, and additional money is recieved from this.
My biggest point however, was that the world will be a poorer place if it IS minus some art.
this was a reply... It's only "stealing" if it's property. The point of the article was, it shouldn't be considered property.
my point is that if you're taking away someone's income, it feels like stealing to them.
David can't believe an artist would keep work to themselves... Are you serious here? They might not have incentive to create, or they might not have the time/money to create even with the incentive, but surely, if they create the work, they aren't going to lock it up in the cellar just cause they won't get paid for it!
most artists (and I have been referring to painters throughout) actually have to pay some sort of money for their work to be public,. If they're not getting paid, and people are going to copy it all over the place, why would they pay for it to be public? if an artist doesn't want an ego stroke, it's far more likely their work will end up in the houses of friends, or in their own home. There won't be a lack of public art from spite, just a lack of incentive. Not all artists are after recognition, for some it means nothing, or even embarassment.
Additionally, buying materials to produce their paintings will be much harder (in a copyright-free society they're only getting money from the original), and less art will be produced.
enochian skipped over to music copyright, which I wasn't actually referring to... *most* artists don't make money on albums, but rather touring and the like. (musicians) I think it depends on how big a band is as to what they make money from, a pub band is hardly going to make much money from an album, but maybe a little in touring. Songwriters also get royalties from people doing "covers" of their songs, this would not exist in a copyright free society. Which also means your favourite band could have their song used in a bad commercial on tv.
. there are ways of *protecting* your art without out copyrights. I have used such methods. One only needs to prove that the art was done at a specific period of time. ie. with music, make a demo of the song and mail it to yourself so that you have the post office's time stamp. There are many cases where this is accepted.
Mailing things to yourself is only useful to back up copyright law, it relies on copyright. If you can prove you had your work before a copier, then the copyright is held up.
3. steal their stuff? If someone plays a song and says they wrote it when they did not, that is wrong. Playing some elses song isn't. The Jazz world is full of other artists interpretation of jazz standards (music).
wrong doesn't mean diddly squat when it comes to the law, either it's illegal or it's not. Even now you'll see interpretations in the music world, most do not end up in court (it helps if you're polite and ask it they mind, courtesy isn't dead). Then there's all the sampling that goes on. I don't think musical expression is being held back by copyright.
I myself am not in favour of blanket copyright nullification. I am also not in favour of the current system as it stands. Some industries are going to be hit very hard if there's no copyright at all, especially groundbreakers. Whether it's R&D (science, computer hardware) or anything else that takes a large outlay of money, with no copyright it's never going to pay off. None of the artists I know are well off, which is why I think money is an issue. Some artists don't have a choice but to create, so unless they can earn a living doing art, they won't get far.
I do not like the RIAA, I think musical copyright has it's points, but the RIAA is NOT copyright, it's an organisation, which doesn't actually look after the rights of it's artists, merely itself.
I think big record companies as they are will be become a thing of the past. They're still thinking they're back in the 70's... we've moved on, we've left them behind. We're looking for a new way of doing things
I hope music artists of the future will look after their own rights, not have someone tell them they don't have any.
the artists themselves. And I'm not just talking the very famous ones. Your average Joe artist NEEDS copyright in an extreme way. Most of them don't have money for their own lawyer, if people do steal their stuff and copy it all over creation.
Artists who receive no payment for their hard work will simply keep it to themselves. Some artists love the limelight, but most just love to create.
Not many people like to have their hard work stolen.
I'm not on the side of the RIAA, I don't think they're much good to their artists at all.
But blanket copyright nullification is just not going to work.
It takes time to create, and it takes money to live. Even if art isn't gone completely as a goal, it'll be on reduced time.
The world would be a poorer place if some of the old Masters had had to work in a pub instead of creating one of their paintings.
All that cloning would do is produce a being that is genetically identical to the being that it was cloned from.
We see on Slashdot many articles about DNA testing and collection, for crime solving or crime prevention. Clones that are genetically identical may well be framed for crimes or whatever.
Then you have the ethics of the rights of a clone. Does a clone have rights? Can a clone be purchased? Can you buy a made-to-order baby clone? Will Disneyland make mutant Mickey Mouse clones to work there? Will there be armies of clones used as disposable troops?
Then there's the biology, if cloning shortens life spans, do we have the right to clone? it's a life that wouldn't have existed before, so maybe we do have the right to create a short one? would clones have identical fingerprints? if a clone breeds with another clone, will mutations occur?
There's a lot of ethical issues when it comes to clones.
Aside from the reasons already mentioned, a phone made of paper will wear out fast, causing you to buy another if you still want one.
This of course is additional revenue for the company who makes them.
I wouldn't be overly worried about the environmental damage this might cause, the plain old household battery causes a lot more, and most people still use them.
before MS aquired Hotmail, I never had a problem with the server being down, mail not sending or login errors.
Since Hotmail was taken over, the service has failed time and again in various annoying ways. The only reason I'm still using them, is that every time I find what looks to be a great email provider, they disappear off the face of the earth, never to be seen again. (the last one was imaginemail.com which was really good)
Hotmail also loads slower now, as everything gets more coporate looking and more "services" are added. You can't opt in for a fast-loading selective service display, which would be great.
I don't think MS is the reason for the breakdown in quality, I think any other large company would have screwed it up just the same. When money becomes the first priority, service always becomes second.
aside from direct case law, if free library internet access is paid for by taxpayers, don't those same taxpayers have the right to an unfiltered service?
what I'd LOVE to see as a solution to this is a few brave ISPs out there giving free internet access to their local library, in return for an unfiltered service to the public. that would be outside federal US law I think...
Re:would you be aware if they were dissuaded?
on
Underground Surfaces
·
· Score: 1
I'm quite sorry you get angered when people assume you want to have children. not angry, just annoyed. Because then I have to correct them.
Heaven forbid that you do something that's been somewhat of a tradition for roughly 15,000 years.
*grin* well we haven't had contraception for that long.
Since that post I've had several guys tell me they have also been expected to have children.
I guess what surprises me is given the fact that children are mostly a choice these days (due to much better contraception), that it's an assumption anyone makes.
It's not like our population is so low we must procreate as fast as possible.
Also for many, children can hamper your career. You don't see many top lawyers (male or female) who have time for families.
Who is it in slashdot who says we do things because we can, without thinking whether we should?
Slashdot Mirror
or are you satisfied just complaining in here?
pschroeder@publishers.org
and yes, I have sent mine. If I get a reply, I will post it in here, with her permission.
I find it very hard to believe that Mr Feist said any such thing...
Perhaps, this is because, like the music industry, they're beginning to see that anybody can go direct with their content in a digital format, and bypass them completely.
is when the industry in question behaves like assholes.
I check out music on Napster, because with CDs at the price they are, I want to make sure they're worth the money, many are not.
If they're so worried, maybe they should take a good hard look at the way they do business and how their customers see them.
Are these publishers just like Metallica? looking for someone to blame for their decline in popularity and sales?
Maybe the AMA should be asking Slashdot for suggestions, doctors shouldn't be making technology decisions.
LEXUS stands for Luxury EXport to the US so the plural would still be LEXUS I guess, Luxury EXports to the US...
mod this up, even if it is a coward
of the risks involved, AND not to give out passwords or other security information.
The same Microsoft who for 20 years has turned out inferior software, who is reviled by a large percentage of the IT community, yet still is the most succesful software company in the world?
The same Microsoft that's been under legal threat, and the same Microsoft that the Average Joe will one day abandon for something better.
Any company that relies on FUD will ultimately fail
For those wondering What's so bad about Microsoft, you can check here.
For those not sure what to recommend with ethical concerns, offer a choice, let them know about MS ethics, but that Linux (or other option) is maybe not the best solution.
Then it's the choice of the customer.
But what if you could make in two screw-the-customer projects what you make in twenty honest contracts?
A quirk of customer relations is that although a good experience with a company is expected, if a customer has a bad experience with a company, they will tell at least 10 people about it very quickly. After that they may bring it up again and again, as an example of crappy service.
For every person they tell, there's a chance that person will tell others, again and again.
Personal recommendations have a LOT to do with consumer choice.
Get a clue.
*laugh* I really should go to bed...
It seems to me that the time is now, at the (argueably) beginning of the technical surge of society. If the system we use to protect the investments we make toward new ideas is flawed so badly, we could really see a hiccup or worse down the line when we hit some sort of patent litigation critical mass.
I agree with you, and I hope we might see a movement or two respond to this post (I won't hold my breath).
In general I have noticed a kind of political apathy in the IT industry. Governments are responsible for laws and patents, and if they're not doing it right, they're not going to know unless someone tells them and/or explains it to them.
Few politicans have much of a clue about technology, which is why you don't see many policies covering it.
I'd really like to see some global organisations covering this, not just US-centric. I don't think you just need lawyers, although they'd be an asset, but a pool of people willing to express their opinions and stand up for them.
Laws passed in one place often repeat themselves somewhere else...
it's not just the OS. I've been through a lot of Apple hardware, and it's all still in perfect working order. I've never had Apple parts break on me, the only tech repair I've had done is battery replacement. Of the PC users I know who've had computers as long as I have, none of them can say the same.
obviously I didn't wrote that post clearly enough.
The world would be a poorer place if some of the old Masters had had to work in a pub instead of creating one of their paintings.
This was trying to point at that when an artist has to do something other than art to support themselves, they are losing the opportunity to create (opportunity cost for those who've done Economics). For those Masters without patrons, art comes second after survival. Therefore, any Masters that did work, are probably short a few paintings than if they'd had a patron. I know copyright didn't effect the Masters directly, but their source of income was the patron. Now the source of income is the copyright AND the originals. A copyrighted painting can be printed as a poster or whatever, and additional money is recieved from this.
My biggest point however, was that the world will be a poorer place if it IS minus some art.
this was a reply... It's only "stealing" if it's property. The point of the article was, it shouldn't be considered property.
my point is that if you're taking away someone's income, it feels like stealing to them.
David can't believe an artist would keep work to themselves... Are you serious here? They might not have incentive to create, or they might not have the time/money to create even with the incentive, but surely, if they create the work, they aren't going to lock it up in the cellar just cause they won't get paid for it!
most artists (and I have been referring to painters throughout) actually have to pay some sort of money for their work to be public,. If they're not getting paid, and people are going to copy it all over the place, why would they pay for it to be public? if an artist doesn't want an ego stroke, it's far more likely their work will end up in the houses of friends, or in their own home. There won't be a lack of public art from spite, just a lack of incentive. Not all artists are after recognition, for some it means nothing, or even embarassment.
Additionally, buying materials to produce their paintings will be much harder (in a copyright-free society they're only getting money from the original), and less art will be produced.
enochian skipped over to music copyright, which I wasn't actually referring to... *most* artists don't make money on albums, but rather touring and the like. (musicians)
I think it depends on how big a band is as to what they make money from, a pub band is hardly going to make much money from an album, but maybe a little in touring. Songwriters also get royalties from people doing "covers" of their songs, this would not exist in a copyright free society. Which also means your favourite band could have their song used in a bad commercial on tv.
. there are ways of *protecting* your art without out copyrights. I have used such methods. One only needs to prove that the art was done at a specific period of time. ie. with music, make a demo of the song and mail it to yourself so that you have the post office's time stamp. There are many cases where this is accepted.
Mailing things to yourself is only useful to back up copyright law, it relies on copyright. If you can prove you had your work before a copier, then the copyright is held up.
3. steal their stuff? If someone plays a song and says they wrote it when they did not, that is wrong. Playing some elses song isn't. The Jazz world is full of other artists interpretation of jazz standards (music).
wrong doesn't mean diddly squat when it comes to the law, either it's illegal or it's not. Even now you'll see interpretations in the music world, most do not end up in court (it helps if you're polite and ask it they mind, courtesy isn't dead). Then there's all the sampling that goes on. I don't think musical expression is being held back by copyright.
I myself am not in favour of blanket copyright nullification. I am also not in favour of the current system as it stands. Some industries are going to be hit very hard if there's no copyright at all, especially groundbreakers. Whether it's R&D (science, computer hardware) or anything else that takes a large outlay of money, with no copyright it's never going to pay off. None of the artists I know are well off, which is why I think money is an issue. Some artists don't have a choice but to create, so unless they can earn a living doing art, they won't get far.
I do not like the RIAA, I think musical copyright has it's points, but the RIAA is NOT copyright, it's an organisation, which doesn't actually look after the rights of it's artists, merely itself.
I think big record companies as they are will be become a thing of the past. They're still thinking they're back in the 70's... we've moved on, we've left them behind. We're looking for a new way of doing things
I hope music artists of the future will look after their own rights, not have someone tell them they don't have any.
all expenses paid conferences...
and things like golf bags, pencils, pens, writing pads, all inscribed with a products name. bribery is the goal.
take a look around your doctor's office next time you visit.
you'll probably recognise a few names, as you've probably been prescribed them.
always ask your doctor for a generic prescription if there is one available.
the artists themselves. And I'm not just talking the very famous ones. Your average Joe artist NEEDS copyright in an extreme way. Most of them don't have money for their own lawyer, if people do steal their stuff and copy it all over creation.
Artists who receive no payment for their hard work will simply keep it to themselves. Some artists love the limelight, but most just love to create.
Not many people like to have their hard work stolen.
I'm not on the side of the RIAA, I don't think they're much good to their artists at all.
But blanket copyright nullification is just not going to work.
It takes time to create, and it takes money to live. Even if art isn't gone completely as a goal, it'll be on reduced time.
The world would be a poorer place if some of the old Masters had had to work in a pub instead of creating one of their paintings.
All that cloning would do is produce a being that is genetically identical to the being that it was cloned from.
We see on Slashdot many articles about DNA testing and collection, for crime solving or crime prevention. Clones that are genetically identical may well be framed for crimes or whatever.
Then you have the ethics of the rights of a clone. Does a clone have rights? Can a clone be purchased? Can you buy a made-to-order baby clone? Will Disneyland make mutant Mickey Mouse clones to work there? Will there be armies of clones used as disposable troops?
Then there's the biology, if cloning shortens life spans, do we have the right to clone? it's a life that wouldn't have existed before, so maybe we do have the right to create a short one? would clones have identical fingerprints? if a clone breeds with another clone, will mutations occur?
There's a lot of ethical issues when it comes to clones.
evolutionary success is dependent on the ability to breed...
Aside from the reasons already mentioned, a phone made of paper will wear out fast, causing you to buy another if you still want one.
This of course is additional revenue for the company who makes them.
I wouldn't be overly worried about the environmental damage this might cause, the plain old household battery causes a lot more, and most people still use them.
nuff said
Security cameras, DNA testing and other big brother techniques are all good in theory, providing there is no corruption.
Misuse of these same technologies can bring about blackmail, government agendas and DNA bigotry.
There's nothing wrong with the technology, except the fact that it will be used by humans.
My only question is how can this problem be fixed?
When the shit hits the fan, if problems were traced back to broken promises and lack of communication, it probably would be.
But that would require management to take responsibility for mistakes, something few companies seem interested in doing.
If you think about it, an employee who *knows* they will not be held responsible for mistakes is hardly going to be making an effort to avoid them.
before MS aquired Hotmail, I never had a problem with the server being down, mail not sending or login errors.
Since Hotmail was taken over, the service has failed time and again in various annoying ways. The only reason I'm still using them, is that every time I find what looks to be a great email provider, they disappear off the face of the earth, never to be seen again. (the last one was imaginemail.com which was really good)
Hotmail also loads slower now, as everything gets more coporate looking and more "services" are added. You can't opt in for a fast-loading selective service display, which would be great.
I don't think MS is the reason for the breakdown in quality, I think any other large company would have screwed it up just the same. When money becomes the first priority, service always becomes second.
Case law suggests otherwise
aside from direct case law, if free library internet access is paid for by taxpayers, don't those same taxpayers have the right to an unfiltered service?
what I'd LOVE to see as a solution to this is a few brave ISPs out there giving free internet access to their local library, in return for an unfiltered service to the public. that would be outside federal US law I think...
I'm quite sorry you get angered when people assume you want to have children.
not angry, just annoyed. Because then I have to correct them.
Heaven forbid that you do something that's been somewhat of a tradition for roughly 15,000 years.
*grin* well we haven't had contraception for that long.
Since that post I've had several guys tell me they have also been expected to have children.
I guess what surprises me is given the fact that children are mostly a choice these days (due to much better contraception), that it's an assumption anyone makes.
It's not like our population is so low we must procreate as fast as possible.
Also for many, children can hamper your career. You don't see many top lawyers (male or female) who have time for families.
Who is it in slashdot who says we do things because we can, without thinking whether we should?